Skip to main content

Catholic Dogmas - You Can't Be Catholic Without Them! Part 3

+
JMJ

Here's my first attempt at a list of Dogma's crucial for today's crisis!

P^3



  1. Book 1: The Unity and Trinity of God
    1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. 
      1. The Vatican Council defined: If anybody says that the one true God. Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, ... " D 1806; cf. 1785, 1391.
    2. There is only One God. * 
      1. Most of the Symbols of Faith expressly teach the Umcity ofGod. The NiceneConstantinople Symbol declares: Credo in unum DeUlll. (I believe in one God) D 54, 86. "fhe 4th Lateran Council (1215) declares: Unus solus est verus Deus. (The true God is one alone) D 428: c£ 1782. Opposed to this basic Christian dogma are heathen polytheism, and gnostic-manichaean dualism which posit several eternal principles.
    3. God is infinitely just.
      1. According to the teaching of the Vatican Council God is "infinite in all perfection," therefore also in justice. D 1782.
  2. Book 2: God the Creator
    1. The first four are pretty clear. The world was created for God, not man (or woman), it has a distinct beginning (world can be taken to include all creation as God is the "Single Principle of all things (4th Lateran Council), God created the Adam, and both Adam and Eve committed the original sin.
      1. The world was created for the Glorification of God. 
      2. The world had a beginning in time. 
      3. The First Man was created by God. 
      4. Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. 
    2. Souls who depart life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision. 
      1.  General Councils of Lyons  (1274) and Florence (1438) taught that those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different.  
      2. Some distinctions that need to be made.  
        1. The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra·..sacramental manner through baptism by blood (c£ the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). 
        2. Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire-Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire-H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasiSacrament (baptism of suffering-H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. C£ D 712. 
        3.  Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia. D IS26.
        4. Conclusion: The 'desiring baptism for aborted babies' are nice thoughts, but there is nothing that can be done to prove them and in their absence we have to rely upon what the Catholic Church has authoritatively taught.  So wishful thinking doesn't cut it.
  3. Book 3: The Doctrine of God the Redeemer
    1. Jesus Christ is True God and True Son of God. * 
    2. Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. 
    3. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a virgin. * 
  4. Book 4: The Doctrine of God the Sanctifier
    1. Infallibility
      1. In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible. 
      2. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. 
      3. The totality of the Bishops in infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith and morals as one to be held by all the faithful. 
      4. See this collection of articles: Series - Infallibility. The key element is that infallibility only applies when there is a definitive teaching of faith and mores that must be held by all the faithful.
    2. Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. 
      1. This one is particularly hard for some Catholics to handle. See Series - EENS for more info.
    3. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist. 
    4. For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary. 
    5. The Holy mass is a true and proper Sacrifice. 
    6. The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation. 
    7. Extreme Unction can be received only by the Faithful who are seriously ill. 
    8. From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life. 
  5. Book 5: The Doctrine of God the Consummator
    1. The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven. 
    2. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell. 
    3. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year:  "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'.  The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage.  The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

 + JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden  communicatio in sacris  [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014  District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on  supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity  exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles,  The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X  which in summary demonstrat...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3